Study of Mail versus Committee Review (for NIH Peer Review of Grant Applications)

摘要

The study compared two methods for reviewing grant applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health; review by mail versus review by NIH's traditional committee process. Dual, independent reviews were completed for 142 applications, with multiple types of data collected. The results showed moderate divergence between the two methods in priority scores awarded to the same application. External, blind ratings of summary statements resulting from each review suggested that both methods yield reviews of similar scientific quality. Each type of statement was rated as superior on a few criterion items, and no average differences occurred for many other items. Systematic observations of the review committees indicated that group processes were not dominated by only a few members. However, group processes were related to the limited time available for interactive discussion, which was shorter in standing study sections than in ad hoc committees. The administrative problems from delay in return of mail reviews suggested that a large scale use of mail review would not be feasible within the current NIH review system.